Nisha Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27779

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2810 of 2024

Applicant :- Nisha Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suhail Kashif,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the case diary.

¶7

In terms of the F.I.R. registered on 8.8.2023, it was alleged that the son of the informant used to stay with his wife separately and on 25.7.2023 at about 9.00 p.m., the applicant had informed the informant that her son has died. When the informant reached his home, he found that the son of the informant had suffered various injuries and was lying unconscious and the applicant was eating food and the applicant alongwith her family members somehow managed to perform the last rites despite refusal of the villagers to do so. It was apprehended that the informant was sure that the applicant alongwith her lover had killed the son of the informant.

¶8

In the light of the said allegation, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no inquest report on record to establish or corroborate the allegations against the applicant. He argued that the statement of the informant was recorded and the statement of the daughter of the informant who corroborated and supported the statement of the informant is on record. Apart from the same, the confessional statement of the applicant was also recorded which according to the applicant is not admissible in evidence. On perusal of the case diary, in support of the F.I.R. allegations, the statement of the informant is on record. The statement of the daughter of the

¶9

applicant aged about 10 years which is a copy paste statement of the informant is also on record. The confessional statement of the applicant is also on record. None of the villagers have given any statement to corroborate the allegations in the F.I.R. with regard to hurried funeral allegedly done by the applicant with the help of her family. The applicant being a lady is languishing in jail since 9.8.2023 having no criminal history may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering these facts prima facie the evidence to prosecute the applicant is weak. The said fact that the F.I.R. was lodged after substantial delay of about 15 days, a case for bail is made out particularly when the applicant is a lady and is languishing in jail since 9.8.2023 without having any criminal antecedents, without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Nisha Devi be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.317 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabanki on her furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the

¶17

Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.4.2024

¶19

Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nisha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Harshit @ Sheru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P., Lko.

Atul vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Rahul Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Taufeeq Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home